487
I’m Absolutely Sure America Is About to Get Exactly What It Wants
(www.esquire.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
487 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1987 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It proved to not be enough. The people who were coming to her rallies were apparently all people who were going to vote for her anyway; the size of the rallies only gave the illusion that her campaign was attracting more voters. And with so many Democrats actively choosing to stay home rather than vote at all, it seems like nothing she did would have mattered anyway. But given the crap she had to work with, she ran a near-flawless campaign. She had no way of knowing that it just didn't matter.
There's still a lot of analysis still to be done, but the Pod Save America guys pointed out that the Harris campaign saw less slippage in states where they were actively competing on the ground than in solidly red states where they didn't fight as hard. This indicates that the campaign did make a positive difference, just not enough to overcome the negatives.
You listed things they tried, but didn't work
Literally the only metric that matters for how good a campaign was, is how many votes they got.
And Kamala drastically underperformed.
So her campaign wasn't "magnificent" it was a spectacular disaster that couldn't beat trump with everything you listed and a billion dollars
Yup. If she ran a magnificent campaign she would have won.
I was arguing with my buddy about this last night. He kept saying that she had to pivot right to have any chance of winning the election. Me pointing out that she performed terribly in the election didn't matter to him. In his eyes shes did everything right and the voters are to blame I guess?
They can never give any logic behind it, and they'll never learn it doesn't work.
But moderates will repeat that line as often as Charlie Brown will attempt a field goal, with the same results over and over again.
If the argument is that Harris should’ve run a more progressive campaign, is there any guarantee that she would get more progressive votes than she would have lost from the center/independents?
Is there any evidence she gained any voters from the right/center?
Because Republican numbers went up, and Dem numbers went down...
But as I've said elsewhere, it's not that more progressive campaign would have gotten more progressivesnto vote for her. It's that nonvoters turn out to vote for progressive campaigns.
Too often people ignore history and say those votes can only be gained from the right. It ignores that one of the biggest reasons people give for not voting for decades is "both parties are the same" and never "the parties are too different".
Downvotes on this comment are delusional.
The only candidate in this election with a positive approval rating was the progressive guy (Tim Walz). Bernie Sanders and AOC are two of the most popular politicians around right now and both of them are very progressive. Obama won a historic election by running a progressive campaign. Andy Beshear won the gubernatorial election in fucking Kentucky with a pro-trans progressive message and is an extremely popular governor.
Liberals refuse to even pay lip service to the idea that regular people support progressive policy.
They're paid an insane amount of money to pretend Dem voters actually want the same thing billionaires and corporations want.
For voters supporting the current democratic party requires a certain level of delusional thinking.
You have to have really worked yourself into a position where given the choice between the bare minimum progress to prevent societal collapse and running full steam towards it, that you legitimately believe a light jog towards complete destruction is the best path forward.
You can't logically get into that position. You need to be brainwashed to the point where literally anyone who is to the right or left of you gets labeled an extremist who's equally as bad and should be ignored.
It's what the billionaire on WBs board was talking about when they bought CNN. They said the goal was to repeat Faux News but for "moderate" Dems.
I just never thought they'd fall for it.
It makes sense. The campaign thought the fear of Trump alone would be enough to bring in the progressive voters and she would have to work on persuading the center. They were clearly wrong in hindsight.
Why do you keep saying she didn't get progressives?
It's like if you repeat it enough it'll come try.
Every current indication is that the votes she lost were from the least likely voters. Election after election progressives have shown they'll show up and vote for the least terrible candidate.
The problem is with people who aren't politically engaged.
Despite the dangers of teump, Kamala was too conservative to excite them enough to get them to the polls.
Moving to the right costs more votes than it gains, there's no evidence it gains any votes in fact.
It just keeps wealthy donors happy